FlyTheNest

HindleA wrote:https://www.nao.org.uk/report/early-pro ... tribunals/


Early progress in transforming courts and tribunal

NAO report

Government’s record of transforming public services suggests the overall benefits of the changes are likely to be smaller than expected and will take longer to achieve.

LONDON — In his apartment a stone’s throw from Tower Bridge on the banks of the River Thames, Jon Lansman is sipping strong black coffee and contemplating life after Jeremy Corbyn.

“We want to make sure it’s democratic before he [Corbyn] goes,” Lansman says. “He’s of an age where he is incredibly fit and well today but who knows if he will be in six months’ time. You cannot predict your health.”

Day one
No repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 until the government has told parliament what steps it has taken to negotiate the UK’s participation in a customs union with the EU.
EU law relating to employment and equality rights, health and safety protections, and consumer and environmental standards not to be altered by ministerial fiat.
Day two
The EU charter of fundamental rights will remain in force.
Individuals retain rights to challenge validity of EU law after Brexit.
Day three
Further limits on ministerial powers to alter EU law incorporated into UK law.
No amendments to Scotland and Wales acts on ministerial fiat.
Changes to UK law in order to comply with international obligations must be made through an act of parliament.
Day four
Parliament must approve the withdrawal agreement and transitional measures in an act of parliament, before the European parliament has debated and voted on this. Also gives the Commons (but not the Lords) the power to decide the next steps for the government if the deal is rejected.
No secondary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement until a mandate for negotiations about the UK’s future relationship with the EU has been agreed by parliament.
Day five
Protects cooperation north and south of the Irish border after Brexit and prevents the establishment of new border arrangements without mutual agreement.
Temporary restrictions on the power of devolved assemblies to legislate in certain devolved areas after Brexit. This is disputed by the Scottish parliament.
Day six
Protects UK membership of EU agencies such as Euratom.
Removes the exit date from the face of the bill.
Negotiates a deal that allows continued membership of the EEA.
MPs given greater power over secondary legislation, with peers defeating the government on scrutiny of statutory instruments.

tinybgoat wrote:https://www.politico.eu/article/jon-lan ... orbyn/amp/
"Leftist army prepares for life beyond Corbyn"

LONDON — In his apartment a stone’s throw from Tower Bridge on the banks of the River Thames, Jon Lansman is sipping strong black coffee and contemplating life after Jeremy Corbyn.

Is Jon Lansman always this scary?

“We want to make sure it’s democratic before he [Corbyn] goes,” Lansman says. “He’s of an age where he is incredibly fit and well today but who knows if he will be in six months’ time. You cannot predict your health.”

tinybgoat wrote:

HindleA wrote:https://www.nao.org.uk/report/early-pro ... tribunals/


Early progress in transforming courts and tribunal

NAO report

Government’s record of transforming public services suggests the overall benefits of the changes are likely to be smaller than expected and will take longer to achieve.

Not expected to go well with then.

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really seen much of people attacking Corbyn over asking Lords to abstain on the EEA amendment. Most comments I've seen have just been pleased to see the amendment passed and see it as a welcome challenge to the government's plans for a hard Brexit.

I honestly can't see how we build a consensus for a soft Brexit which keeps us in the single market (which inevitably means accepting freedom of movement of people to some degree) if we don't start talking about it.

frog222 wrote: I wonder if he's realised where he went wrong in his drift to the right on austerity, immigration etc ?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:A little frustrating to see people laying into Labour again over the Brexit Bill. Of all the below, Corbyn asked peers to abstain on just one. He has said all along that he believes discussing the Single Market is problematic and he may well be right.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really seen much of people attacking Corbyn over asking Lords to abstain on the EEA amendment. Most comments I've seen have just been pleased to see the amendment passed and see it as a welcome challenge to the government's plans for a hard Brexit.

I honestly can't see how we build a consensus for a soft Brexit which keeps us in the single market (which inevitably means accepting freedom of movement of people to some degree) if we don't start talking about it.

That's reassuring. I'm probably following the wrong folk on Twitter

gilsey wrote:ON BRITAIN'S INTELLECTUAL DECLINE
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... _mumbling/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good comments btl.

Today, though, that ethos has been replaced by the idea that the customer is king and that giving punters what they want is all that matters.

gilsey wrote:

frog222 wrote: I wonder if he's realised where he went wrong in his drift to the right on austerity, immigration etc ?

Don't you think where he went wrong was in standing against his brother instead of waiting for Corbyn to come and go?

20/20 hindsight.

frog222 wrote: TBG -- that's not scary, it's real life ! I'm 71 this year and not making Twenty Year Plans

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really seen much of people attacking Corbyn over asking Lords to abstain on the EEA amendment. Most comments I've seen have just been pleased to see the amendment passed and see it as a welcome challenge to the government's plans for a hard Brexit.

I honestly can't see how we build a consensus for a soft Brexit which keeps us in the single market (which inevitably means accepting freedom of movement of people to some degree) if we don't start talking about it.

That's reassuring. I'm probably following the wrong folk on Twitter

I think for once that Corbyn has been overshadowed by the bigger story of the role of the Lords. The 14 government defeats are much more significant than a request to abstain ignored (a request to vote against would have been a real conflict but Corbyn wasn't against, so possibly not that big a deal). I'm assuming the right wing press are up in arms over the unelected upper chamber doing their job in trying to improve the bill, but haven't checked yet. Ultimately, the government can't undo these amendments without first defending their Brexit decisions in the Commons and that has to be a good thing.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really seen much of people attacking Corbyn over asking Lords to abstain on the EEA amendment. Most comments I've seen have just been pleased to see the amendment passed and see it as a welcome challenge to the government's plans for a hard Brexit.

I honestly can't see how we build a consensus for a soft Brexit which keeps us in the single market (which inevitably means accepting freedom of movement of people to some degree) if we don't start talking about it.

That's reassuring. I'm probably following the wrong folk on Twitter

A secret UK push to weaken key EU climate laws before Brexit risks scotching the bloc’s Paris commitments, MEPs say. The EU has committed to a 20% cut in its energy use by 2020 to be achieved by two directives, covering energy efficiency and buildings. But leaked documents seen by the Guardian show that Britain is pushing for its 2014-2020 timeline to be stretched backwards four years to count “early actions” taken that comply with the efficiency directive. Any “excess energy savings” during the law’s writ would then be forwarded to the post-2020 period. MEPs have branded the plan “incomprehensible”.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:@PaulfromYorkshire

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't really seen much of people attacking Corbyn over asking Lords to abstain on the EEA amendment. Most comments I've seen have just been pleased to see the amendment passed and see it as a welcome challenge to the government's plans for a hard Brexit.

I honestly can't see how we build a consensus for a soft Brexit which keeps us in the single market (which inevitably means accepting freedom of movement of people to some degree) if we don't start talking about it.

That's reassuring. I'm probably following the wrong folk on Twitter

Avoid anybody with #FBPE in their title, that's a good start

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

I think for once that Corbyn has been overshadowed by the bigger story of the role of the Lords. The 14 government defeats are much more significant than a request to abstain ignored (a request to vote against would have been a real conflict but Corbyn wasn't against, so possibly not that big a deal). I'm assuming the right wing press are up in arms over the unelected upper chamber doing their job in trying to improve the bill, but haven't checked yet. Ultimately, the government can't undo these amendments without first defending their Brexit decisions in the Commons and that has to be a good thing.

Yes that's my thinking too.

It's going to be very interesting. Do you know when the bill goes back to the Commons?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Corbyn smashed it at PMQs, even some of his regular critics admitting as much.

Corbyn said the prime minister had had “23 months to negotiate an agreement” with her cabinet but no progress had been made. “These negotiations are in a shambles. This house is being denied the opportunity to debate crucial legislation affecting the future of our economy and communities all over Britain.

“When will we debate the trade bill and the customs bill? She’s had 23 months to get ready for it.”

“They have two options, neither of which are workable,” Corbyn said. The government, he said, had “wasted weeks working up proposals that the EU said was unworkable...”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... mplausible" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

I think for once that Corbyn has been overshadowed by the bigger story of the role of the Lords. The 14 government defeats are much more significant than a request to abstain ignored (a request to vote against would have been a real conflict but Corbyn wasn't against, so possibly not that big a deal). I'm assuming the right wing press are up in arms over the unelected upper chamber doing their job in trying to improve the bill, but haven't checked yet. Ultimately, the government can't undo these amendments without first defending their Brexit decisions in the Commons and that has to be a good thing.

Yes that's my thinking too.

It's going to be very interesting. Do you know when the bill goes back to the Commons?

Theoretically 21st May, but there has been some speculation it might be delayed....

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Corbyn smashed it at PMQs, even some of his regular critics admitting as much.

It raises the prospect of them eventually withdrawing a customs union amendment to the trade bill, on which the government faces defeat, and so bolstering the prime minister’s chances of getting her Brexit deal through the Commons.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:That's a bit of a surprise tbh - why?

refitman wrote:SNP voting against Leveson 2. Power to the people!

Willow904 wrote:

refitman wrote:SNP voting against Leveson 2. Power to the people!

I think there was an amendment about libel fees the SNP weren't prepared to support that was subsequently withdrawn.
I think they must have supported the Leveson 2 vote, but there were only 5 Tory rebels which I guess wasn't enough.

Willow904 wrote:

refitman wrote:SNP voting against Leveson 2. Power to the people!

I think there was an amendment about libel fees the SNP weren't prepared to support that was subsequently withdrawn.
I think they must have supported the Leveson 2 vote, but there were only 5 Tory rebels which I guess wasn't enough.

citizenJA wrote:

Willow904 wrote:

refitman wrote:SNP voting against Leveson 2. Power to the people!

I think there was an amendment about libel fees the SNP weren't prepared to support that was subsequently withdrawn.
I think they must have supported the Leveson 2 vote, but there were only 5 Tory rebels which I guess wasn't enough.

Are newspapers typically liable for legal costs in libel actions they win as the law stands now?

Canadian zoo faces charges after taking bear out for ice cream at Dairy Queen

Discovery Wildlife Park in Alberta faces two charges for failing to notify officials the bear was leaving the zoo (Guardian)